Michael Hardner Posted December 20, 2010 Report Posted December 20, 2010 (edited) They are increasing at very similar rates yes, although the US has increased faster than Canada, Germany, Switzerland, or the UK. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Health_care_cost_rise.PNG Thats shows Canada following roughly the same increase as switzerland, austria, germany, the uk, etc. I wonder what these nations have in common, then, to have their healthcare costs increase so similarly ? Edited December 20, 2010 by Michael Hardner Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
dre Posted December 20, 2010 Report Posted December 20, 2010 I wonder what these nations have in common, then, to have their healthcare costs increase so similarly ? Theres a couple of obvious things that come to mind. All of them had at least SOME sort of post ww2 baby boom. All of them are countries that have generally high production costs for products and services. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Michael Hardner Posted December 20, 2010 Report Posted December 20, 2010 Theres a couple of obvious things that come to mind. All of them had at least SOME sort of post ww2 baby boom. All of them are countries that have generally high production costs for products and services. But not all of them hate a baby boom. You can't tell from the graph. It may just be a result of the general economic boom since 1970 that people can pay more for things that are so important. Does that make sense ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
dre Posted December 20, 2010 Report Posted December 20, 2010 (edited) But not all of them hate a baby boom. You can't tell from the graph. It may just be a result of the general economic boom since 1970 that people can pay more for things that are so important. Does that make sense ? Yup it does. To be honest I dont think you can pin down one single reason. Theres lots of factors in play. But when you compare prices with up and coming markets the price differences are so staggering that its pretty easy to see thats how big price reductions could happen. Maybe you could "tweak" our system and slow things down a bit, but if you want to make a real diference the government has to start value shopping. They should start by studying the services at various facilities around the world, and deciding which ones are good enough (JCI is probably a good start), and start allowing patients to have procedure done abroad on a voluntary basis, and giving them a check for 1/2 of what they saved our system. This would relieve the burden on our system right away, and it would reduce the demand for medical professionals here which over time would lower the cost. People have to wise up. We were outraged that the government didnt put a 10 billion dollar aircraft contract out for global tender but we sit idily by while they do the same thing with hundreds of billions of dollars worth of healthcare expenditures. But not all of them hate a baby boom. I was wondering about that! I couldnt remember if all of western europe had the same post WW2 baby boom or not, and I could find good information on it in less than 30 seconds so I stopped trying. My claim that all those countries had baby booms might in fact be incorrect. Theres a bit of information here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-World_War_II_baby_boom. It first mentions only four countries, but then it lists these countries as having a Post WW2 increase in birth rates as well. France 1946–1974 United Kingdom 1946–1974 Finland 1945–1950 Germany 1955-1967 Sweden 1946–1952 Denmark 1946–1950 Netherlands 1946–1972 Ireland 1946–1982 Hungary 1946-1957 Iceland 1946–1969 New Zealand 1946–1961 Australia 1946–1961 Edited December 20, 2010 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Michael Hardner Posted December 20, 2010 Report Posted December 20, 2010 "hate" should read "have"... Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
dre Posted December 20, 2010 Report Posted December 20, 2010 "hate" should read "have"... Hmmmmm. I interperated it as "had". Freudian slip Mike? Not fond of children? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Michael Hardner Posted December 20, 2010 Report Posted December 20, 2010 Hmmmmm. I interperated it as "had". Freudian slip Mike? Not fond of children? No, I never have had hated half-pint humans. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.